http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7174899.stm

The British Government is about to announce a decision on the building of new Nuclear power stations.

Until Fusion power generation becomes feasible (if ever) I think that nuclear fission power may be our best option to reduce carbon emmisions, but the environmentalists (GreenPeace) think otherwise.

What are the world's best choices for energy until fusion reactors arrive?

---

Sir Arthur C Clarke 1917-2008

Nuclear fission, based on water cooled fast breeder reactors.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Has the world forgotten Three Mile Island, Chalk River, Kyshtym, Greifswald, Goiania, Tokaimura, Mihama, Kashiwazaki?

Unfamiliar names? How about Chernobyl?

Atomic energy is not the best choice for the world because of the huge amounts of nuclear waste produced. No one wants the stuff stored near themselves and the sites used for storage are now found to be unsafe for many reasons.
We haven't developed the technology to store nuclear wastes safely for tens of thousands of years.

Beside the waste issue, there's the issues of plant safety. The above names are some of the sites where accidents have happened.

There are many alternatives out there which will not poison the world if the technology breaks down.
There are also alternatives that do not require the subsidy levels of atomic energy.
The belief that atomic energy is inexpensive is a lie told to us by the promoters of nuclear energy.
This is one of the more costly forms of energy production and could not survive without vast amounts of support from the public by way of subsidies, tax breaks and old fashioned hand-outs.

Let's find another way to produce energy that is both from renewable sources and non-toxic.

Has the world forgotten Three Mile Island, Chalk River, Kyshtym, Greifswald, Goiania, Tokaimura, Mihama, Kashiwazaki?

Unfamiliar names? How about Chernobyl?

Atomic energy is not the best choice for the world because of the huge amounts of nuclear waste produced. No one wants the stuff stored near themselves and the sites used for storage are now found to be unsafe for many reasons.
We haven't developed the technology to store nuclear wastes safely for tens of thousands of years.

Beside the waste issue, there's the issues of plant safety. The above names are some of the sites where accidents have happened.

There are many alternatives out there which will not poison the world if the technology breaks down.
There are also alternatives that do not require the subsidy levels of atomic energy.
The belief that atomic energy is inexpensive is a lie told to us by the promoters of nuclear energy.
This is one of the more costly forms of energy production and could not survive without vast amounts of support from the public by way of subsidies, tax breaks and old fashioned hand-outs.

Let's find another way to produce energy that is both from renewable sources and non-toxic.

Are you gone silly town?

Almost noone in western designed nuclear power plants have ever been harmed. Compare that to

COAL

PETROLEUM

HYDROELECTRIC

even SOLAR AND WIND.

much more fatal......

So stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. Nuke power is clean, safe, and productive.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Could they dig a hole several miles (kilometers) deep and drop the spent rods down that? Maybe at the end of the hole they could use a bomb to make the storage chamber bigger.

---

Could they dig a hole several miles (kilometers) deep and drop the spent rods down that? Maybe at the end of the hole they could use a bomb to make the storage chamber bigger.

See? Isn't it so much more pleasant to use your scruffy noggin' ?

Oh, btw. 90% or so of all nuclear material in the u.s.a. goes unrecycled and has to be disposed of. Know why? Enviornmentalists lobbied for it that way.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Has the world forgotten Three Mile Island, Chalk River, Kyshtym, Greifswald, Goiania, Tokaimura, Mihama, Kashiwazaki?

Unfamiliar names? How about Chernobyl?

Atomic energy is not the best choice for the world because of the huge amounts of nuclear waste produced. No one wants the stuff stored near themselves and the sites used for storage are now found to be unsafe for many reasons.
We haven't developed the technology to store nuclear wastes safely for tens of thousands of years.

Beside the waste issue, there's the issues of plant safety. The above names are some of the sites where accidents have happened.

There are many alternatives out there which will not poison the world if the technology breaks down.
There are also alternatives that do not require the subsidy levels of atomic energy.
The belief that atomic energy is inexpensive is a lie told to us by the promoters of nuclear energy.
This is one of the more costly forms of energy production and could not survive without vast amounts of support from the public by way of subsidies, tax breaks and old fashioned hand-outs.

Let's find another way to produce energy that is both from renewable sources and non-toxic.

Are you gone silly town?

Almost noone in western designed nuclear power plants have ever been harmed. Compare that to

COAL

PETROLEUM

HYDROELECTRIC

even SOLAR AND WIND.

much more fatal......

So stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. Nuke power is clean, safe, and productive.

Both sides of my mouth???? You really are just a shill for the republicans aren't you.

You have the nerve to say that after you claim that nuclear is safer than solar and wind?

What do you do with the spent nuclear waste? We drill a hole and drop it in.
Do you guys have any concept of ground water contamination?
Once irradiated, the water and surrounding rock will be contaminated for a hundred thousand years. Do you really believe that the ground water doesn't circulate through the Earth's mantle and eventually reach the surface?

Oh, but who cares? That won't happen until after you're dead.

Another thing to consider in your lemming-like rush to do whatever the elites tell you to do...those nuclear plants make a nice target for the generations of "terrorists" created by American meddling in the Middle East, and you double-damned well know that they'll get to one of the plants.

Personally, I'd rather see every rooftop in the country covered in solar panels.

Could they dig a hole several miles (kilometers) deep and drop the spent rods down that? Maybe at the end of the hole they could use a bomb to make the storage chamber bigger.

That will only fracture the rock layer allowing for even greater leeching.

Snip...
Personally, I'd rather see every rooftop in the country covered in solar panels.

What do you mean by solar panels?

Heat-exchangers or photo-electric panels (sorry simplicity?)

If you mean photo-electric panels most would take many many years to recover the energy and pay for the polution that was used to create them. (and most would have degraded by then..)

Heat-exchangers are an excellent idea for anyone in a climate with enough sunlight.... Though to store that energy and use it to power lights (for example) they would need generators, volatile batteries, electronics etc...


I have no problem with nuclear power I just don't think we have learnt how to use the power we already have well enough.


A question people here may not like but is perhaps interesting:

How can we use so much energy searching the stars via SETI when there are millions without even one light bulb in their homes?

The obvious answer is that our governments will try anything including nuclear power so that you and I can continue to play computer games and so that SETI can still search the stars...


We can blame our governments but we are the end consumers of all that energy.


I think the question isn't about whether we want nuclear power stations and waste but whether we are willing to give up many of the energy and resource heavy benefits we enjoy in our lives?


Am I wrong?

:o)~

.

cRunchy...What time periods are you talking about when you say that photo electric panels degrade?
Are we talking decades or a couple of years?
This is the first time I've heard a concern about this issue.
I better do some looking.

As to reducing our usage, I hope everyone is willing to cut back by walking to the library or hanging clothes to dry, among other things.

I'd rather have stiff towels than a nuclear plant nearby.

cRunchy...What time periods are you talking about when you say that photo electric panels degrade?
Are we talking decades or a couple of years?
This is the first time I've heard a concern about this issue.
I better do some looking.

As to reducing our usage, I hope everyone is willing to cut back by walking to the library or hanging clothes to dry, among other things.

I'd rather have stiff towels than a nuclear plant nearby.

Every thing degrades. It depends on the construction, materials and environment.

Decades. Maybe.

Photo electric cells are not all produced from the same materials and if mass produced (cheap for all) will be made to a lower quality.

Over their life time their output will degrade.


Think about this:

It may seem cheap-ish to produce a photo-cell today because we have a heavily subsidised technological oil ecconomy but what will these electronic components cost tomorrow when there is little oil left.

Would those cells not just heat and warm our homes but could they power the industry needed to replenish lost cells or produce even the basic requirements that we need on an industrial level?


At present to produce a photo-electric cell costs more if you include not just the final consumer price but its resource impact than it produces in usable electricity. We just don't see the actual cost because it is oil that has subsidised the production.

I just think if we are worried that oil may run out or that it is polluting the world we should look for technologies that are the least oil dependent in their production as possible.


I'm not sure I can explain myself better.

I don't mind stiff towels either.

Though I do wonder without the kind of power we get from oil whether we would have any towels. (We don't grow cotton in the UK so rely on oil for it's transport...)


Sorry. I'm just mostly thinking aloud..

.